The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Falana

  • Buhari greets Falana on 60th birthday

    President Muhammadu Buhari on Saturday saluted erudite lawyer and human rights activist, Mr. Femi Falana, on his 60th birthday.

    President Buhari, in a statement issued by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Femi Adesina, joined family members, friends and professional colleagues of Falana in celebrating the milestone.

    The President noted with delight that Falana’s career as a lawyer had been marked with honours and awards for forthrightness and advocacy for the good of every Nigerian.

    He commended the lawyer’s sense of patriotism over the years and his advisory roles to leaders, institutions and governments, especially on the value of good governance.

    President Buhari believed that Falana’s antecedents had been most exemplary and commendable in advocating for better life for the poor and underprivileged.

    NAN

  • Lawmaker’s suspension: What the law says, by Falana

    Suspension has become a weapon in the hands the leadership of states and federal legislatures to whip ‘erring’ members into line. But, activist-lawyer Femi Falana says it’s a violation of the constitutional rights of constituents to suspend their representatives. Citing empirical precedents, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) also says it is wrong to trample on any lawmaker’s rights to freedom of speech and association.

    IF the Court of Appeal ruling on the suspension of a member of the Bauchi State House of Assembly is anything to go by, the leadership of states and national assemblies would think twice before wielding the suspension rod to browbeat lawmakers.

    The appellate court affirmed the High Court judgment on the reinstatement of Rifkatu Danna (Bogoro State Constituency, Bauchi), who was placed on indefinite suspension for speaking out against the leadership of the Assembly.

    But, the suspension virus continued to spread with Delta Central Senator Ovie Omo-Agege as its latest victim.

    The harmer fell Omo-Agege penultimate week. He became the second senator to be shut out of the legislative chamber by the leadership of the Eighth Senate.

    Like the Borno South senator, Ali Ndume, who had a six-month suspension slammed on him in March, last year, Omo-Agege was suspended for 90 legislative days for his membership of the Parliamentary Support Group (PSG) for President Muhammadu Buhari and opposition to the polls’ time-table re-ordering bill.

    Ndume was suspended for allegedly embarrassing Senate President Bukola Saraki and Kogi West Senator Dino Melaye.

    In the House of Representatives, Abdulmumini Jibrin (Bebeji/Kiru Federal Constituency, Kano), was suspended for exposing padding of the 2017 budget by the House leadership.

    Jibrin, who headed the House Committee on Appropriation, was suspended in 2017 for 180 legislative days.

    His suspension was lifted on March 13, following an apology letter, he purportedly wrote to Speaker Dogara.

    The former Chairman, House of Assembly Committee on Information, Gboyega Abibisogan (Ikole State Constituency) was suspended in October 2016 for 180 days.

    His offence was alleged disloyalty to Governor Ayo Fayose and association with “opposition elements”.

    In Bauchi, a female member of the State House of Assembly, Rifkatu Danna (Bogoro State Constituency), was indefinitely suspended for her opposition to the relocation of Tafawa Balewa Local Government Headquarters to Bununu District without the benefit of a dissenting voice.

    Her suspension, which was quashed at the State High Court, was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

    But, activist-lawyer Femi Falana said the leaderships of the law-making chambers have no power to punish any legislator with suspension. He laced his position with instances.

     

    It’s illegal to suspend legislators

     

    In the celebrated case of The Speaker, Bauchi House of Assembly v Honourable Rifkatu Danna (2017) 49 WRN 52, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Bauchi State High Court, which had set aside the indefinite suspension of the respondent as a member of the Bauchi State House of Assembly. In view of the penchant of the leadership of the current national assembly to suspend members who express dissenting opinions from parliamentary business it has become necessary to draw the attention of legislators and other Nigerians to the current state of the law.

     

    Suspending a lawmaker is denial of constituents

     

    “The fact that the respondent was re-elected for another four-year term by the people of Bogoro Constituency in Bauchi State to represent them in the House of Assembly was to ensure that she had the right to be in the House of Assembly for another four-year term to serve the constituency without undue interference. Secondly, it was to ensure that the constituency is represented in the Bauchi State House of Assembly for the four-year lifespan of the Assembly. That is why Section 117(1) of the Constitution provides as follows:

    “117(1) Subject to the provisions of this constitution, every state constituency established in accordance with the provisions of this part of this chapter shall return one member who shall be directly elected to a House of Assembly in such manner as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.”

    The Bogoro Constituency in Bauchi State has to always have an elected member representing her interests in the House of Assembly. That is a constitutional guarantee, a violation of which the respondent is seeking to be protected in the originating summons proceedings. But the indefinite suspension of the respondent was a calculated attempt to silence the respondent from opposing the relocation of Tafawa Balewa Local Government Headquarters to Bununu District without the benefit of a dissenting voice. The majority shall have their way but the minority should be heard….

    To suspend the respondent indefinitely is to preclude her from participating in the deliberations of the Bauchi State House of Assembly. The resultant effect is to deny Bogoro Constituency participation in the deliberations of the Assembly through their chosen representative. But, the Bogoro Constituency has the right to be represented in the Bauchi State House of Assembly.

    In my humble opinion, any member of the Bogoro Constituency could have timeously challenged the indefinite suspension of their choice representative in the Bauchi State House of Assembly on the grounds that their accrued rights had been violated or breached by the appellants. The conduct of the appellants is the tyranny of the majority against an elected minority of the Bauchi State House of Assembly. Even where there is a petition to recall a serving member of the House of Assembly, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) acts timeously within ninety days of the date of the receipt of the petition from the Constituency to fill the vacancy. See Section 110(a) and (b) of the Constitution. That is not so in this regard.

    The exercise carried out by the appellants constitutes a mockery of democracy. “

     

    Guaranteed freedom to take critical position on views of majority

     

    The learned silk cited the South African case of Speaker of the National Assembly v. Patricia De Lille MP & Anor. (1999) ZASCA 50; (1999) 4 All SA 241 (A) where the respondent, a member of the South African National Assembly made a number of unsubstantiated allegations against other members in the course of a debate. On being reprimanded by the Speaker, the respondent unconditionally withdrew her remarks. Despite this, the South African House of Assembly punished the member by suspension for fifteen days. The suspension was challenged in the High Court of Justice. The High Court set aside the suspension. The National Assembly appealed to the South African Supreme Court. The court held as follows:

    “There is therefore nothing in the ‘rules and orders’ of the Assembly, which qualifies in any respect relevant to the appeal, the right to freedom of speech in the Assembly which Section 58(1) guarantees. More directly, there is nothing which provides any constitutional authority for the Assembly, to punish any member of the Assembly, for making any speech, through an order suspending such member from the proceedings of the Assembly. The right of free speech in the Assembly protected by Section 58(1) is a fundamental right crucial to representative government in a democratic society. Its tenor and spirit must conform to all other provisions of the Constitution relevant to the conduct of proceedings in parliament. In the result, the appellant has failed to persuade me that the National Assembly had any constitutional authority to suspend the respondent from the National Assembly in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence adduced before the High Court.”

    Learned silk further referred to Ezeoke v. Makarfi (1982) 3 NCLR 663 at 674 where Nasir, P.J., held that:

    “Section 3 deals with the immunity of members from proceedings in respect of words spoken in reports to the House or to a Committee of the House. In view of what I have stated in respect of the powers and privileges of the legislature in this country and in other countries, I am of the view that Section 3 is not unconstitutional as suggested by Mr. Akinrinsola. It is fundamental in any democracy, like our own, that members of the legislative and those called upon to speak before the legislature while the House is sitting must be free to express their opinion without any fear of prosecution or any other form of duress…

    I had envisaged that the learned silk in the course of argument would draw attention to provisions of the Constitution or the rules governing the Bauchi State House of Assembly which empowered indefinite suspension of a member for purporting to utter “derogatory” words in the course of a debate but none was referred to in argument.

    Suspension is the act of temporarily depriving a person’s rights and privileges, especially in his office or profession. It should be the, temporary withdrawal of privileges and rights from either an employment or an office pending the happening of certain events. But, to suspend a member of a House of Assembly indefinitely since 7th June, 2012 is to muzzle the respondent’s freedom of expression. It is a violation of the respondent’s constitutional rights and those of Bogoro Constituency whom the respondent represents in the Bauchi State House of Assembly.

    The word “derogatory” means showing a critical attitude towards somebody. See Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th edition, page 394. If derogatory remarks or comments are not permissible or tolerated in the Bauchi State House of Assembly, that in itself is a violation of the freedom of expression; to hold opinions; to receive and impart ideas, etc, under Section 39(1) of the Constitution.

    What the appellants did also constituted an unwarranted attack on freedom to disseminate information, ideas and opinions. The respondent is the chosen voice of Bogoro Constituency. The Speaker and members of the Bauchi State House of Assembly ought not to have slammed an indefinite suspension on the respondent in this circumstance where the constituency had an interest to protect. In a democracy, conscientious objectors must be tolerated. Their rights must not be trampled upon. The majority may not always be right. For example in courts, dissenting judgments at times lay the foundation for amendment of the constitution, statutes or rules by the legislature. For democracy to nurture in Nigeria, the opposition must be heard…

    Articles 8 and 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Ratification and enforcement) Act, 1983, guarantees freedom of conscience, the right to receive and disseminate information and to express opinions within the ambit of the law. The acts of the appellants violated these rights without lawful justification. Section 40 of the Constitution reads as follows:

    “40.      Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons… for the protection of his interests.”

    When the respondent sought to protect the interests of Bogoro Constituency on the floor of the Bauchi State House of Assembly, the first appellant considered her speech “derogatory,” and clamped her with indefinite suspension, followed by the withholding of her salaries and allowances since 7th June, 2012. The appellants also withdrew her driver and compelled her to hand over all properties in her possession. Not even the military would have behaved in this dastardly manner. This is a flagrant abuse of the constitutional powers vested on the speaker and members of the Bauchi State House of Assembly which no right – thinking member of the society ought to tolerate.

    In article 11 of the African Charter (supra), the exercise of this right of freedom to assemble freely with others shall only be subject to necessary restrictions provided by law. The circumstances for censorship are set out in the said article and section 45(1) of the Constitution (supra). The onus lies on the appellants to show, and this they have not shown, that the derogatory speech fell within the ambit of the circumstances provided in article 11 and section 40 of the Constitution (supra).”

     

    No law empowers lawmakers to suspend colleague

     

    “Even where the master/servant relationship is established, there is no implied power for the master to suspend the employee indefinitely except as provided in a statute or by agreement between the parties. See Adekunle v. W.R.F.C. (1963) WRWLR 6. Wages and allowances are usually paid during suspension. See Utit v. Odukpani (1959) 3 ENLR 28 and Hanley v. Peace Partners (1914 – 1915) All E.R Rep. 984.

    In Chief Nzeribe v. Senate President (unreported suit No. FHC/ABJ/380/2002 of 5th May, 2003 Adah, J., (as he then was) held that: “An indefinite suspension of the plaintiff therefore is nothing but an arbitrary show of power and a tyranny of the majority…. The indefinite suspension of the plaintiff therefore cannot be justified in this situation. It is therefore void, and I so hold.” I adopt these views as mine.

    To suspend the respondent indefinitely is to preclude her from participating in the deliberations of the Bauchi State House of Assembly. The resultant effect is to deny Bogoro Constituency participation in the deliberations of the Assembly through their chosen representative. But the Bogoro Constituency has the right to be represented in the Bauchi State House of Assembly.”

  • Why Senate cannot suspend its members – Falana

    Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), on Monday explained why the Senate cannot suspend its members.

    He described such action as “a mockery of democracy.”

    The Senate had last week suspended one of its members, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, over a statement he made on the amended time table for 2019 election.

    The lawyer, in a statement issued in Lagos and titled: “Illegal suspension of legislators in Nigeria,” drew the attention of the leadership of the National Assembly to the habit of suspending members who expressed dissenting opinions on parliamentary issues.

    He cited the case of the Speaker of the Bauchi House of Assembly vs Honourable Rifkatu Danna (2017) 49 WRN 52 and explained why it is illegal for leaders of a legislative house to suspend any of its members.

    He said the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Bauchi State High Court which had earlier set aside the indefinite suspension of Rifkatu Danna as member of the Bauchi State House of Assembly.

    He argued that the suspension of a legislator amount to a denial of representation by his or her constituency and a violation of the constitution.

    “The fact that the respondent was re-elected for another four year term by the people of Bogoro Constituency in Bauchi State to represent them in the House of Assembly was to ensure that she had the right to be in the House of Assembly for another four year term to serve the constituency without undue interference.”

    He said it was also to ensure that the constituency is represented in the Bauchi State House of Assembly for the four year lifespan of the Assembly.

    “That is why section 117(1) of the Constitution provides as follows: ‘Subject to the provisions of this constitution, every State Constituency established in accordance with the provisions of this part of this chapter shall return one member who shall be directly elected to a House of Assembly in such manner as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly,” he added.

     

  • Falana: Mace not required for parliamentary proceedings

    LAGOS lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has said that a mace is not a prerequisite for the sitting of legislative houses.

    Last Wednesday, the Senate was invaded by five young men in a commando-like operation.

    During the raid, the mace on the central table in the Senate was snatched and taken away.

    The business of the day could not continue until a replacement was found by the senators.

    Even though the stolen mace has since been found by the Police and handed over to the Senate leadership, there have been strident calls for the prosecution of the invaders. Some have even suggested that the suspects be tried for treason.

    But reacting to the development, Falana, in a statement issued in Lagos yesterday, said there was nowhere in the constitution where it  was expressly or impliedly provided that a Mace shall be provided before the Senate or House of Representatives or any other legislative house can sit and conduct legislative business.

    According to him, “by virtue of Section 54 of the Constitution, either of two houses of the National Assembly is competent to sit and conduct proceedings once the quorum of the members is formed. The said quorum is one-third of all the members of the legislative House concerned.

    “In all the cases in which the impeachment of state governors has been annulled and set aside by the Supreme Court and other courts, it was due to the failure of the Houses of Assembly concerned to comply with the provision for quorum, which is two-thirds of all the members in line with section 188 of the Constitution.”

    He described the mace as a colonial legacy, which the country ought to have abandoned.

    He said: “As a colonial legacy, the Mace was part of the Nigerian parliament in 1960 when the Queen of England was our Head of State. Even when the nation became a Republic in 1963 under an indigenous President, the paraphernalia of office and title of the Speaker of the British Parliament were fully retained. That was how the Mace, which is a symbolic authority of the parliament under a monarchical government, was adopted by our Republican parliament.”

    He, however, urged legislators to stop attaching undue importance to the conventions of the British Parliament.

    “Even though Nigeria adopted the presidential system of government since 1979, our legislators have continued to retain the vestiges of the Westminster parliamentary system. For instance, the leader of a legislative house in Nigeria is addressed as “Right Honourable Speaker” while he/she wears the wig and gown on ceremonial occasions like the head of the British parliament. But with time, the mace, wig and gown, which are not provided in our statutes, will disappear from our legislative houses,” he stated.

    Falana said he found it curious that the National Assembly has not deemed it fit to enact a law to protect the mace, which is so regularly snatched or stolen by legislators.

    However, he said the suspects may be charged under the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.

    “However, while the investigation into the embarrassing invasion of the Senate by the Police is in progress, it is pertinent to point out that the Mace is not a prerequisite for parliamentary business in Nigeria. In other words, the proceedings of a legislative house cannot be invalidated because of the absence of a Mace,” he said.

  • Falana queries NNPC’s N1.4tr monthly subsidy bill

    Rights activist, Femi Falana (SAN), has asked Minister of State, Ministry of Petroleum Resources, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu, to provide information on its N1.4 trillion monthly subsidy bill.

    Falana notified Kachikwu that he had seven days to respond, as stipulated by the Freedom of Information Act and impressed on him, the resolve of President Muhammadu Buhari to promote accountability and transparency.

    The senior lawyer cited three instances where the minister and the Group Managing Director (GMD) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Dr. Maikanti Baru, gave conflicting information on the nation’s fuel consumption rate and subsidy cost.

    Falana said: “In December 2017, the Management of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) disclosed that the nation’s consumption rate of fuel was 28 million litres per day and that subsidy cost was N726 million per day, i.e. N261.4b per annum.

    “But on March 5, 2018, the Group Managing Director of the NNPC, Dr. Maikanti Baru claimed that the figure had metamorphosed to 50 million litres per day and that NNPC had spent $5.8 billion (1.7 Trillion naira) on fuel importation in January and February 2018.

    “Furthermore, at a public forum held in Abuja two weeks ago, you stated that the consumption rate of fuel has skyrocketed to 60 million and that the cost of subsidy is N1.4 trillion per month!”

    He poked holes in claims that smuggling of imported fuel from Nigeria to neighbouring countries by some economic saboteurs caused Nigeria’s increasing consumption rate.

    Falana said: “Assuming, without conceding, that the story of smuggling is true, the total volume of fuel consumed by Benin, Togo, Cameroon, Niger, Chad and Ghana is said to be less than 250,000 litres per day.

    “You will agree with me that this does not explain the difference of 32 million litres per day between the consumption rate of imported fuel in December 2017 and March 2018.

    “With respect to the alleged subsidy of fuel importation, you failed to disclose the amount realised from the sale of the 60 million litres at N145 per liter.

    The lawyer accused the minister of “conveniently” failing to account for the sale of the 445,000 barrels of crude oil allocated to the NNPC daily by the Federal Government.

    He said: “Honourable Minister, the convenient defense of smuggling as cheap justification for a gap of 32 million litres a day (at 145 naira per litre is 4.6 billion naira daily) is untenable given the billions of naira continually expended on Project Aquila Software by the Petroleum Equalisation Fund (PEF), a Parastatal under your watch in the Petroleum Ministry, to track every litre of petroleum product evacuated from the depots and sold at retail stations in the country.

    “Since the Project Aquila Software has capability to identify the identity of owners and locations of all trucks loading petroleum products in Nigeria, why has your office and NNPC continued to blame smuggling for the drain of N4.6 billion daily on petroleum products?

    “How many of the truck owners involved in the alleged smuggling have been arrested and arraigned in court since Aquila has the data base of all truck owners in the country?”

    Falana said the doubtful explanations had compelled him to request for copies of at least six documents:

    “Bill of Laden and DPR certified Cargo Discharged Certificates of the imported subsidised Petroleum Products into the country from December 2017-March 2018.

    “Offshore Processing Agreements pertaining to the sale of the 445,000 barrels of crude oil per day plus any additional crude barrels approved for domestic consumption from December 2017 -March 2018.

    “Volumes of domestic refined products by the nations’ local refineries against gross expenditure on refinery Turn Around Maintenance (TAM)/ Expended Budget in 2017.

    “Gross amount of Forex differential or Forex subsidy (gap Between CBN rate and Special rate approved for fuel importation) from December 2017-March 2018.

    “Amount expended by PEF on Project Aquila from inception aimed at tracking Petroleum Trucks nationwide to prevent smuggling of petroleum products.”

  • Falana: no legislative house can suspend member

    Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has described as illegal and unconstitutional, the suspension of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege by the Senate. He said no legislative house has the power to remove or suspend any of its member.

    Falana said: “No legislative house can suspend or remove a member. It is only a court of law or the constituency that elected them can order the removal or suspension of their representative.

    “This is because when you remove or suspend a legislator,  his constituency no longer has a representative in that house and that is not legal”, he argued.

    He recalled a case he handled involving a  female lawmaker in the Bauchi House of Assembly who was suspended indefinitely over a statement she made on the floor of the house.

    He said the matter was fought up to the Court of Appeal which held that the legislative House had no such power.

  • Falana to Shi’ites: continue your protest

    ACTIVIST lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has urged the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), also known as Shi’ites, to continue its protest for release of its leader, Sheik Sheik Ibraheem El-Zakzaky.

    Falana, who addressed members of the sect during a rally in Abuja yesterday, said: “I am impressed with your courageous and peaceful protest. Your action is justified under the Constitution, which guaranteed the fundamental rights of every citizen to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. Your action is legitimate because it is a protest against impunity arising from the executive lawlessness of the Federal Government. Your demand is in order because it is in line with the tenets of the rule of law. Please keep it up.

    “When we were fighting for the restoration of democratic rule under brutal military dictators, I never thought that court orders were going to be treated with disdain by elected governments. It is particularly painful for me that court orders are disobeyed under the current political dispensation, whereas under the Buhari/Idiagbon military junta, court orders for the release of victims of the obnoxious Decree No 2 of 1984 were complied with.

    “I urge you and other lovers of democracy not to allow the Buhari administration disobey the judgments of competent courts. As you know, the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice G. O. Kolawole, ordered Sheik Ibraheem El-Zakzaky’s release, and his wife, and awarded them N50 million damages. Since the Army and the Nasir El-Rufai regime demolished and burnt their home on December 15, 2015, the court ordered the government to provide them with a suitable accommodation. Those orders which were granted on December 2, 2016 have been ignored by the Muhammadu Buhari administration, which claims to operate under the Rule of Law.

    “Having been subjected to illegal arrest and detention, I can imagine the mental and psychological agony the El-Zakzakys’ are going through in the illegal custody of the State Security Service (SSS). It is an irony that President Buhari is in charge of a civilian government that is detaining people without trial.

    “I laud you for your resolute and principled determination to secure the release of your leaders and others. Please continue the protests until you succeed in compelling the government to comply with court orders.”

  • Danjuma was right on self-defence call, says Falana

    ACTIVIST-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has backed the advice by a former Minister of Defence and an elder statesman, Lt. -Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (retd), that Nigerians should defend themselves against killers.

    Falana said the constitution recognises the right to protect oneself from violent attack.

    He spoke in Lagos yesterday at the headquarters of Vintage Press Limited (publishers of The Nation) in Lagos during a training on libel for reporters.

    Falana, who noted that the media has been awash with suggestions that Danjuma’s comments were a call to anarchy, said the General might have a right to sue critics of his statement for libel.

    He said: “Some of the reactions on Danjuma’s statement could be libellous. What Danjuma said is accommodated under our Constitution.”

    Falana observed that although Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution recognises the right to life, such right might be lawfully circumscribed in accordance with Section 33(2).

    He said: “Section 33(2) says a person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary – for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property.

    “If the government is unable to save you as in the case of the Benue, Kogi and Zamfara attacks, you have a right to defend and save yourself.

    “So, if you insult Danjuma that he is inciting violence, that could be a ground for him to sue you for libel.”

    Last Saturday, at the maiden Convocation of the Taraba State University (TSU), Jalingo, Danjuma alleged that the Armed Forces had failed to protect Nigerians because they collude with killer herdsmen.

    Danjuma said: “The ethnic cleansing must stop in Taraba State, must stop in all the states of Nigeria. I ask everyone one of you to be alert and defend your territory, your state. You have nowhere else to go.”

    Falana’s interpretation of Danjuma’s statement echoes that of Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN) and Professor of International Law and Jurisprudence, University of Lagos Prof. Akin Oyebode.

    Both senior lawyers, in separate interviews with The Nation last Sunday and Monday, affirmed Nigerians’ right to defend themselves from being massacred.

    Falana also described as embarrassing, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)’s refusal to comply with his Freedom of Information (FOI) request for accountability.

    He said the NNPC’s claim that it is not a public institution is erroneous in the light of Section 2(7) of the Freedom of Information Act, which, according to him, has defined public institutions to include the NNPC.

    Falana also criticised soldiers’ practice of parading in their uniforms in public. According to him, it is a relic of military rule.

    He said: “We must not allow soldiers wear uniforms in town. Before the Civil War, it was an anomaly.”

    The lawyer described as wrong the media’s practice of referring to the State Security Services (SSS) as Department of State Services (DSS).

    According to him, there is no DSS; the lawful name for Nigeria’s secret police is State Security Services (SSS).

    Earlier, Falana distinguished between what is fair comment and defamatory.

    He said: “It is not every statement that is libellous. It is what right-thinking members of the society say about it.”

    Falana encouraged the media to “publish and be damned but do it responsibly. But be very sure the document you are quoting in your report is tenable”.

    The lawyer also warned the media to “be careful how you report lawyers and judges because of solidarity”.

    He admonished reporters against writing a story from a writ of summons that has been filed, but has not been heard in court, as the publication of its contents may form valid grounds for a libel claim.

    “Take advantage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Journalists hardly do,” Falana said.

    The SAN cautioned against the practice of disseminating unverified information on the internet, because “innocent dissemination of information can put you in trouble”.

    He advised the defendant in a libel suit to be reasonable.

    Falana said: “If you can’t defend a libel case, don’t be arrogant about it, apologise.”

  • Danjuma was right on call for self-defence – Falana

    Activist-lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has backed the former Minister of Defence, Lt. Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (retd) on his call for Nigerians to defend themselves against killers.

    Falana said the Constitution recognises the right to protect one’s self from violent attack.

    He stated these at a training programme on libel organised by the Vintage Press Limited (publishers of The Nation Newspapers) for its reporters.

    Falana was received by Vintage Press Managing Director, Victor Ifijeh; Chairman of the Newspaper’s Editorial Board, Sam Omatseye; General Manager Training and Development, Soji Omotunde and Managing, Editor Online and Special Publications, Lekan Otunfodurin, among others.

    The lawyer, who noted that the media has been awash with suggestions that Danjuma’s comments are call to anarchy, said the retired army officer could sue critics of his statement for libel.

    He said: “Some of the reactions on Danjuma’s statement could be libelous. What Danjuma said is accommodated under our Constitution.”

    Falana observed that although Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution recognises the right to life, such right might be lawfully circumscribed in accordance with Section 33(2).

    He added: “Section 33(2) says a person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary – for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property.

    “If the government is unable to save you as in the case of Benue, Kogi and Zamfara attacks, you have a right to defend and save yourself.

    “So, if you insult Danjuma that he is inciting violence, that could be a ground for him to sue you for libel.”

  • Democratise SAN award, says Falana

    Activist lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has asked that the guidelines for Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) award should be reviewed to ensure that all qualified applicants are honoured.

    He gave the advice while delivering the dinner speech to mark the 90th birthday of  a Life Bencher, Pa Tunji Gomez. Falana praised the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch for “celebrating Pa Gomez while he is still alive”.

    He said: “There is no way you can justify giving the award to only 21 lawyers in a year where you may have shortlisted over 200 applicants. It gives room for a lot of discretion, and this has to go.” Instead, he said Nigeria should emulate England, Jamaica and Canada where all qualified applicants are awarded the rank.

    Falana lamented that only two percent of female lawyers have been awarded  SAN since inception in 1975, adding that this does not show Nigeria as progressive.

    According to him, the dinner/lecture, which was held at the MUSON Centre, Lagos “is also a challenge to lawyers to live a good life so that they can be celebrated in their lifetime”.

    Falana noted that Gomez’s anti-SAN rank stance was borne out of his commitment to equality before the law and equal rights. As far as he is concerned, a lawyer is a lawyer.

    “And if we are running a truly democratic system like in America, there should be no ranking of lawyers.” Falana, however, observed that since Nigeria “inherited the British tradition of having a club of lawyers to act as a shining example for others, we are retaining the rank of Senior Advocate”, he said.

    The human rights activist, however, noted that over the years, “it has become undeniable that the rank has been mired in controversy just like any honour given in Nigeria.  It ought to be pointed out that the campaign for the abolition of the rank is not limited or peculiar to Nigeria”.

    He observed that the rank was abolished in Ghana in 1988, following a court judgement, adding that the attempt by the abolitionists in Nigeria led by Gomez to replicate that feat was truncated by the Federal High Court on a “technical ground” of lack of service.

    He however recalled that former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed had advised the abolitionists to seek an amendment of the enabling law in their bid to sound the death knell on the rank.

    Falana said he owed a debt of gratitude to the Gomez-led abolitionists for the award of the rank to him “and for keeping up the struggle,” adding that without Gomez’s struggle, “it would have been impossible to open the floodgates as it were” to accommodate more applicants.

    “Today, large-scale reforms have taken place,” he said, adding: “And when I stand before you and l am described as SAN, I think it was the struggle that pushed the legal establishment to expand the frontiers to accommodate those who were otherwise said not to be fit and proper persons to be Senior Advocates of Nigeria.”

    He observed that late Chief Gani Fawehinmi and himself were listed consistently for 10 and eight years before they got frustrated, adding: “It was the system ‘’on its own ”that invited him to take silk.

    Falana enumerated some of the shenanigans that had attended the award of silk and noted that the revised guidelines had sought to reverse this by focusing on advocacy at the trial courts, adding however that this may cause hardship to some applicants “in the midst of many senior advocates” whose cases take precedence.

    He observed that the new guidelines also sought to strengthen the award mechanism and ensure that more people are admitted to the inner Bar, adding that the guidelines equally emphasise the conduct of the awardees as they may now be de-robed.

    Falana, however, warned: “The legal establishment of a conservative profession is not going to abolish the rank of senior advocate. What the authorities have settled for is to reform the process.”

    He therefore advised better case management by judges to accommodate non-SANs, adding that senior advocates should play more leading roles in the affairs of the Bar at the branch level.

    NBA Lagos Branch Chairman, Mr. Chukwuka Ikwuazom said the decision of the branch to honour  Pa Gomez was to appreciate his “uncommon and zealous” commitment to the branch, even as the Chairman of the Planning Committee. He thanked all who contributed in making the celebration a huge success.

    The event, chaired by former Body of Benchers chairman, Chief S. M. Olakunri (SAN) was attended by the cream of the bar and bench.